W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: Full 1.1 Test Suite Status Updated

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:46:05 +0100
Message-ID: <1805590680.20101118174605@w3.org>
To: Patrick Dengler <patd@microsoft.com>
CC: Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>, "public-svg-wg@w3.org" <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
On Wednesday, November 17, 2010, 6:25:43 PM, Patrick wrote:

PD> I was pretty sure that Chris was working on adding fallback
PD> support to WOFF for tests that have SVGFonts. 

I am.

PD> Did I miss something?

Only that "additional fallback" and "requiring support for WOFF" are different things.

I'm not removing the SVG fonts (since support for them is required in SVG 1.1). For tests which benefit from precise text positioning but whose purpose is not testing SVG fonts, I'm adding WOFF fallback so that the two implementations which don't support them (IE9 and Mozilla) don't needlessly fail.

Which is pretty much what Erik says below. So I am not sure what you are missing.

PD> -----Original Message-----
PD> From: public-svg-wg-request@w3.org
PD> [mailto:public-svg-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Erik Dahlstrom
PD> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 7:54 AM
PD> To: public-svg-wg@w3.org
PD> Subject: Re: Full 1.1 Test Suite Status Updated

PD> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 01:04:37 +0100, Alex Danilo <alex@abbra.com> wrote:

>> Hi Patrick,

>>       For the tests:
PD> ...
>> WOFF is not an option for these tests. They are aimed at SVG user 
>> agents, not compound document handling web browsers disguised as 
>> universal application platforms facilitating operating system 
>> redundancy:-).

PD> Alex is right, the tests cannot require support for WOFF since
PD> that's not a required part of SVG 1.1 (or CSS2.0).

>> WOFF is a _Working Draft_ last published on 27th July 2010. It is a 
>> long way from Recommendation status and as such, completely unsuitable 
>> for being referenced in any test for features in a W3C Recommendation.

>> I know from your point of view the request seems advantageous for 
>> convenience, but it is incompatible with the process, and effectively 
>> breaks all the Tiny implementations being shipped today.

PD> To be clear, the group has not agreed to remove the SVG Fonts in
PD> those tests, but to add fallback fonts in an additional format(s).
PD> I don't think that's a breaking change, but I agree with you about
PD> the riskiness of adding a font format that is still in working draft status.

PD> Would downloadable TTF fonts be any better? I don't mind if there
PD> are fonts you can download and install on the system, and I don't
PD> mind adding an additional test that doesn't use text there.
PD> /Erik

 Chris Lilley   Technical Director, Interaction Domain                 
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
 Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Thursday, 18 November 2010 16:46:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:29:44 UTC